rebuttal. >> i find that difficult to believe because the republican party plant in dallas, one of the things they said was the position on abortion would be a litmus test not only for supreme court justices but also other federal justices. that seems to me a blurring of the lines of the separation between church and state. >> next questioning for mr. boyd. >> mike many americans, each of you has recently had an unhappy experience with the internal revenue service. i'm going to prolong your ordeal. congresswoman ferraro, you disagree with the rules that a candidate must report the income or asset of his or her spouse if they get benefit from them. your income taxes return that you did benefit because your husband paid mortgage and property taxes on your home. the house ethics committee is examining this question, but they will not report their findings until after the election. would you be willing to ask that

committee to hurry up its report before the election? >> let me say to you, i already did that. i wanted them to move ahead. if you recall, i went an hour and 45 minutes speaking to 200 reporters on august 21, the day after i was required to file my financial statement. and i sat for as long as they had questions on the issue, and i believe that they were satisfied. i found more information on any other candidate. not only did i agree to file my tax returns after a little bit of prodding, my husband also agreed to file his with the -- not with the ethics committee but with the f.e.c., but the action you are talking about was started by a right wing legal organization foundation knowing that i would have to -- that there would be an automatic inquiry. we have filed the necessary

papers. i have asked them to move it along. unfortunately the house, i believe will be going out of session today. i don't know if they will move. quite frankly, i would like that to be taken care of anyway, because i just want it cleared up. >> since that famous august 21 press conference on your finances, you filed a new report with the ethics committee, and this showed your previous reports were full of mistakes and omissions. for example, you failed to report about fwelf trips that were paid for by special interest groups. at least 18 cases, your holdings were misstated. do you think it shows good leadership to plame blame all this on sloppy work to your account yanlt? >> what it shows is that truly i hired an account yavent that had been with our family for well over 40 years. he was filling out those ethics forms. i did not spend the time with him. i just gave him my tax information and he did it. i have to tell you what we have done since. i hired a marvelous account

yanlt. i spent a lot of money having him go through those ethics forms, and he will be doing my taxes over the next eight years while we're in the white house so the american public can be sure it is all taken care of. [applause] . >> vice president bush, last year you paid less than 13% of your income in taxes. according to the i.r.s. someone in your bracket normally pays 23%. is there something wrong with our tax laws that requires such large deductions of taxes for wealthy people? >> they reported federal taxes, state and local taxes. it gives people a fairer picture. that year i happened to pay a lot of state and local taxes, which, as you know, are deducted from the other. i looked it up the other day, and we paid, i think it's 342% of our gross income in taxes.

s >> we did a little looking around to see about his. we can't find his 1981 tax return. it may have been released. maybe my bonet knows whether he released it. we did find his income is $1.4 million, and i think he paid the same as i did in taxes. he also made a reference that troubled me very much. he started talking about my chauffeur. you know, i'm driven to work by the secret service. so is mrs. ferraro, so is mr. mondale's. they saved the life of the president of the united states. i thought that was a cheap shot telling the american people to try to divide class, rich and poor. but the big question, it isn't whether mrs. ferraro is doing

well. i think they are depog pretty well. i know barbara and i are doing well. and it is darn sure mr. mondale is doing well with $1.4 million. but the question is, are the tax codes fair? the answer is, the rich are paying 6% more on taxes and the poor are getting a better break. they went to the ethics committee. they went to change the trust. the trust has been revealed. and i was sure glad to see that i had paid 42% of my gross income in taxes.

>> are you really a texan? >> i am really a texan. i may have noted she has a new good accountant. i would like to get his name and phone number. i think i paid too much in the way of taxes. and residents, mr. boyd, legal residence for voting is very different. the domicile, they call it, very different than the house. they say you are living in the vice president's house. therefore you don't get -- i got problems with the i.r.s. so do a lot of people out there. i think i've paid too much. it's not unethical. i'd like to get some money back.

>> i will give the vice president my accountant, but i warn you, he's expensive. i think the question is, whether or not the tax system that our government uses is fair. i think it is unfair, but it is not something we can address in the short term. the tax cuts the vice president and i got three years ago, no, that's not fair. if you earn 20,000, 40,000, you may have gotten 1,000. if you made let's less than 10,000 you suffered a loss of $400. that's not fair. that's basically unfair. not only is it unfair, but economically, it has darn-near destroyed this country. there is a $750 billion tax cut over five years. that's one of the reasons we're facing the debts we have now. >> mr. vice president? >> i think i've said all i want

to say. . that is the part of this debate devoted to domestic affairs. we will now turn to foreign affairs.

>> vice president bush, since your administration came to power, the president has promised a stern response against terrorism. but attacks have continued in lebanon and the middle east. what can be done to stop the? stop?too it? >> terrorism is very difficult to stop. when you see the lebanon building hit by terrorism, the israelis, with all their experience fighting terrorism, you know it is difficult. when you see khamenei with his radical islam resorting to government-sponsored terrorism, it is difficult. the intelligence business can do

a good job. i am always want to defend the central intelligence agency. i believe we should strengthen it. i believe we still have the best foren intelligence business in the world. it is difficult to get the source information that you need to go after something as shadowy as international terrorism. in iran, you had a government holding a u.s. embassy. the government, sanctioning the takeover of that embassy by those students. the government negotiating with the united states government for their release. in lebanon, in the terror that happened at the embassy, you have the governor -- governments bear one thing to -- there wanting to help with terrorism. as everyone who has experience in that area knows, it is a

difficult thing. we need absolutely the best security possible. we cannot go assigning blame. the president is accepting that. he has been wonderful about it and everything that has happened. fair minded people who understand international terror know it is hard to guard against. the answer lies in the middle east and terrorism is happening all over the world. it is a solution to the palestine question. under the umbrella of the reagan september, 1982 initiative will reduce terror. will not eliminate it. >> you mentioned khomeini. some people charge the previous administration of being almost helpless. why isn't your administration doing something to take action against arab states that foments this type of terrorism. >> we son states that want to stand up against international

terror. -- we fund states that want to stand up against international terror. our relationship with israel has never been better. we do believe in reaching out to what is called both cooperative states and helping them with defensive weapons to guard against international terror or radical islam perpetuated by khamenei. because we have done that and because the saudi arabians have shot down a couple of the intruding airplanes we have helped keep the peace in the persian gulf. >> representative ferraro, you and mr. mondale have criticized the president on international terror. what would you do to reduce the attached? >> mr. bush has preferred to the

embassy that was held in iran. i went to the white house in january in 1981 when all 52 of the hostages came home alive. at that time, president reagan gave a speech welcoming them home. we were so excited to see them back. but he said was, the united states has been embarrassed -- what he said was, the united states has been embarrassed for the last time. next time, there will be swift and immediate steps taken to address the wrong against our country. in april of 1983, i was in beirut and visited the ambassador at the embassy. two weeks later, the embassy was bombed. take a look at the crazy activities of terrorism -- terrorists.

you never know what will happen. the following october, there was another bombing. that bombing took place at a marine barracks. right after that bombing occurred, there was a commissions the up. that commission did a study of the security arrangements around where the marines were sleeping. it found there was negligence, that they did not have proper gates up, proper precautions to stop those trucks from coming in. the long commission reports and the president stood up and stand -- and said, i take responsibility. last month, we had our third bombing. there was no data up. the second time with our marines, the gate was open. the third time, the gate was not installed. what was the president's

reaction? the security arrangements were not in. the marines were guarding its and left -- it and left to go away. again, the president assumed responsibility. i would like to know what that means. are we going to take proper precautions before we put americans in situations where they are in danger? is this president going to take some action? >> some democrats cringe at the words spying and covert activity. do you believe they have a legitimate role in counteracting terror around the world? >> the cia, in the last bombing, had given information in reference to the actual threat that that embassy was going to be bombed. there is a legitimate reason for the cia to exist and that is to gather intelligence for

information for our security. when i see them doing what they are doing in south america, i do not support that kind of activity. the cia is there to protect our government, not to subvert other governments. >> vice president bush? >> i think i just heard mrs. ferraro said she would do away with all covert action. that has serious ramifications that the intelligence community knows. this is serious business. sometimes it is quite support for a friend. let me help you with the difference, mrs. ferraro, between iran and the embassy in lebanon. in iran, we were held by a foreign government. in lebanon, you had a terrorist action where the government oppose it. we went to lebanon to give peace a chance, to stop the bombing of civilians in beirut, to remove 13,000 service -- terrorists

from lebanon. for somebody to suggest these men died in shame, they better not tell the parents of those young marines. they gave peace a chance and our allies were with us. >> representative ferraro? >> i almost present president -- but president bush for the patronizing attitude that you have to teach me about foreign policy. i have seen what has happened in the past 17 months of your administration. secondly, please do not categorize my answers. leave the interpretation of my answers to the american people who are watching this debate. let me say further that no one has ever said those young men who were killed by the negligence of this administration and others ever

died in shame. no one with a child who is 19 or 20 years old would ever say that about the loss of anybody else's child. >> representative ferraro, you have repeatedly said he would not want your son to die in an undeclared war for an uncertain cause. mr. mondale has suggested it might be necessary to erect a haunting for the problem. -- erecting a military force for nicaragua. under what circumstances would you be for military action? >> i would recommend it is for the protection of our nation and our neighbors. when mr. mondale referred to the quarantine of central america, a

country in central america, what he was referring to was a last resort after all other means of settling the situation down there had been exhausted. quite frankly, now what is being done by this administration is the americanizing of a regional conflict. they are moving militarily instead of promoting the process. the process that is in place with the support of mexico and colombia and panama and venezuela -- instead of supporting the process, our administration has been supporting covert activities in it for what was to keep the revolution going to overthrow the sandinista government. el salvador was not pushing the head of the government toward the correction of human rights problems that exist there. now this administration seems

almost befuddled by the fact that nicaragua is moving to participate in the process. alabama silo door is reaching out to be guerrillas to negotiate peace. -- el salvador is reaching out to the guerrillas to negotiate peace. >> many time in its history, the united states has gone to war to defend freedom. does your answer mean you would be willing to forgo the use of military force even if it meant the establishment of a soviet- backed dictatorship so close to our own borders? >> i assume you are speaking about the government of nicaragua. we can work with the government to achieve a pluralistic society. they do have elections coming up

on november 4. we have to work with them to achieve a peaceful solution to bring about a pluralistic country. no, i am not willing to live with a force that could be a danger to our country. i would see that our country would be putting all kinds of pressure on the neighboring countries of honduras, costa rica, el salvador to promote the kind of society we can all live with in security of this country. >> vice president bush, cuba and the what what are making extensive preparations to defend themselves -- cuba and nicaragua are making extensive preparations to defend themselves against a december invasion. can you tell us what circumstances a reelected reagan administration would consider the use of force in the

caribbea >> we do not think we would be required to use force. let me point out there are 2000 cuban military and 7500 so- called cuban advisers in nicaragua. there are 55 american military in el salvador. i went down on the instructions of the president to speak with the commander in el salvador. i told them they had to move with the president of el salvador to respect human rights. they have done that. they are moving well. it is not perfect. the difference between el salvador and nicaragua is like the difference between night and day. el salvador went to the polls. mr. duarte was elected by 70% of the people. in nicaragua, you have something different. you have a marxist, leninist group who came to power and has

avoided their democracy. they have humiliated the holy father. they have cracked down on the only press oregon there, censoring the press, something that should concern every merican -- organ there, serving the press, something that should concern every american. mr. ortega went down there and found that the ground rules were so unfair, he could not even wait a campaign. one country is devoid of human rights. the other is struggling to effect their democracy. we do not like it when the arrival exports is revolution or serves as a conduit to try to destabilize else salvador. we are concerned about that. we want to see this trend toward democracy continue. there has been something like 13

countries since we have come in moves toward democracy. grenada is not unrelated. i have a big difference with mrs. ferraro on that one. we gave those tiny caribbean countries a chance. we saved the lives of those thousands of students who said they were in jeopardy. grenada was a proud moment because we stood up for democracy. are these countries a threat for nuclear weapons? no, there is not that kind of threat. >> considering this country's long respect for rule of international law, wasn't right for the united states to be involved in mining harbors of nicaragua and refused to allow a world court to adjudicate that dispute? >> i support what we are doing. it was supported by the congress under the law.

my only regret is that the aid for the contras -- if we called them freedom fighters. they want to see the democracy perfected in nicaragua. am i to understand by this assault on covert action that nowhere in the world would we do something that was off base when mrs. ferraro said she would never support it. would she not support it if the violation of human rights was so serious that they needed freedom fighters? everyone who is not for this, everyone who wants to let the sandinista government prevail like castro did -- the contras are not sandinistas. these are the people who avoided the revolution. these are the people support human rights. >> representative ferraro.

i spent a good deal of time in central america in january and had a chance to speak to the contras. the situation, as it exists now, because of this administration's policies, is not getting better. we are not moving toward a more secure area of the world. the more troops the sandinistas have accumulated since the demonstration has started this action has risen from 12,000 to 15,000. i did not support the mining of the harbors. it is a violation of international law. this week, commerce votes to cut off covert aid to nicaragua until is request is made and there is evidence there is a need for it. the covert activities, which i

oppose in nicaragua, the cia covert activities in that this is the country are not supported by the congress and are not supported by the majority of people throughout this country. >> vice president bush? >> i would simply like to make the distinction again between those countries that are searching for democracy and the handful of countries that have totally violated human rights and are going the marxist route. ortega, who is head of the nicaraguan sandinistas, is an avowed marxist. they do not believe in the church or free elections or all of the values we believe in. it is our policy to support the democracies there. when you have freedom fighters who want to perfect that revolution and all the democratic route, we believe in giving them support.

we are for negotiation. $3 out of every $4 we have sinned there has been for economic aid to support the people's chance to eat and live up and be happy and enjoy life. you when i get that from listening to mr. mondale. >> vice president bush, the last three republican administrations, eisenhower, nixon, ford, met with the soviets and got agreement on arms control. the soviets have not changed that much. can you tell us why president reagan has not met with soviet minister's at all and that only met with foreign minister of the soaring -- only met with the foreign minister a month ago. >> there have been three separate soviet leaders. in three and half lead -- three

and a half years, three separate leaders. the soviets have not been willing to talk. we went to the table. we had a good and moral proposal. banned an entire generation of intermediate nuclear force weapons. do not leave the soviets with 1200 of these things and the alliance with now. we do not think that was the way you deter aggression and keep the peace. the first thing the president did when he came into office was make a proposal on the most destabilizing weapons of all. the soviets said, we do not like that proposal. we said we would be more flexible. at the urging of the president, i went to geneva and laid on the table a treaty to ban all chemical weapons. we said, let's come together. come over here and see what we are doing and we will go there and see what you are doing.

let's say the kids of this world from chemical weapons, a brilliant proposal to get rid of all of them. the soviets, no, no, no. they are not even willing to tell us the base. there are four sessions. we had an agreement with them on the hot line. carter-mondale made an agreement. the democratic senate and the democratic administration would not even ratify the agreement. it was flawed. it was unverifiable. it was not good. our president was to reduce, not just to stop. he wants to reduce dramatically nuclear weapons. when the soviets know they are going to have a strong president to deal with and this new administration can solidify its position, they will talk. if they think the opposition will give up the b1 before they

sit down unilaterally before they are willing to talk, they may just sweat it out for them a more years. who knows? >> you have been quoted as saying a nuclear war was winnable. is that your opinion? >> i was quoted wrong. i never said that. i agree with the president. it should never be fought. nuclear weapons should never be fought with. that is our approach. let's encourage the soviets to come to the table as we did at the meeting. i wish everybody could have seen that one. the president giving the facts to all of these in these nuclear meetings. excellent, right on top of the subject matter. i'll bet he went back to the

soviet union and said, this president is calling the shots. we better move. i think the agreement is in the interest of the soviet union just as it is in the interest of the united states. they are not deterred by rhetoric. i have lived in a communist country. it is not rhetoric that the sides and agreement. it is the self-interest of those countries. >> representative ferraro, you and mr. mondale are for a pair of viable nuclear freeze. how would you verify such an agreement and make sure the soviets are not cheating? >> let me say, first of all, that there is not any issue more important in this campaign than war and peace. it is not enough to want peace. we must believe in it. it is not enough to believe in it. you must work for it. this administration's policies

have indicated quite the opposite. the last time i hurt by president bush blamed the fact that they did not meet with -- the last time i heard vice- president bush blamed the fact that they did not meet with the soviet union that athere have been three soviet youth -- soviet leaders in the past three years. they are people like soviet leaders have managed to meet with and they cannot meet with the president of the united states. this is the first president since the start of negotiating our arms control agreements who has not negotiate an arms control agreement. he has been opposed to every single one that every other president has negotiated

including carter, for, and nixon. let me just say that with reference to the vice president's comments about the intent and desire of the united states in this administration, the soviet union did walk out of the talks. it seems to me that in 1982, when the administration presented the s.t.a.r.t. proposal, it was not a realistic proposal. it dealt just with land-based nuclear missions -- missiles. that aside, in 1982, their own negotiator came out with a proposal which would have limited the number of nuclear arms in europe. that proposal was turned down by the administration. the proposal presented by its own administrator. i am delighted that they met with the soviet leader.

the could have had an opportunity to meet with him in 1981 when he came to the u.n. and in 1982 as well. >> congresswoman, i am sorry. i have to impose a limit on you. vice president bush? >> there is quite a difference between the leader of cyprus and the leader of the free world, ronald reagan in terms of meeting. the soviet union will meet with a lot of different people. we have been in close touch with those who have met with the leaders of the soviet union. that is quite different than meeting with the president of the united states. the soviets say, we will have a meeting when there has been progress. yet they left those talks. i would like to correct my opponent on the walk in the woods. it was the soviet union that was unwilling to discuss the what in the woods. representative ferraro mentioned

the inflexibility on -- of our position on strategic arms. we tried to reduce the ss-18's and those weapons. there is flexibility. that is an important point in terms of negotiations. >> congresswoman, he that taketh away, must give back. you will have the to menace our a rebuttal. but you rob me of my follow-up. -- > >> you rob me of my follow-up. >> representative ferraro, how can you convince the american public that the world will be a safer place under ferraro-

mondale. ? >> what you can do is look at what we have done and recognize they will not do much in the future. since they have done nothing, do we continue to build? and arms race does not lead to anything except another arms race. vice president mondale has indicated that what he will do is i do not think you can start negotiating until you start talking. secondly, he would issue a talent in the nature of temporary mutual verifiable to halt testing in the air -- had entered the atmosphere that would respond with a challenge

from the soviet union. we hope to sit down and negotiate a treaty. that was done in 1960. >> you have another minute. a >> what that would do is give us the opportunity to sit down and negotiate a treaty. that was done in 1960 by president kennedy. he issued a challenge to the soviet union. in two months they set down and negotiated a treaty. we do not have to worry about that kind of testing. it is mutual. it is verifiable and is a challenge. once that is not met, we would continue testing as well. >> a hourglass to series of

questions. >> you have had little or no experience in military matters and get you might find yourself commander in chief of the armed forces. how can you convince the american people that you would know what to do to protect this nation's security. the thing the soviets might be attempted to take the advantage of the because you might be a woman? >> i think what happens is when you try to equate whether or not i have had military experience, that is the natural conclusion. it is as valid as saying he would have to be black to devise racism. you'd have to be a female to be offended by sexes them. i think if you take a look at

where i have been in the congress and where i choose to go, the type of person i am, the people of this country can rely on the fact that i will be a leader. i do not think the soviet union can sit down and determine what half to doif i half hal something with the soviet union. if the soviet union were to ever to believe they could challenge the united states with any kind of nuclear forces or otherwise. if i were in a position of leadership, that would be assured they would be met with swift, concise, and certain retaliation. let me say one other thing. the most important thing that one has to do is get to the

point where you are not put into that position. the way you get to that position of moving away from having to make a decision on anything else is moving towards arms control. that is not what has been done over the past four years. if you were to take a look at the failures of this administration, that would have to be number one. i will not put myself in that position. i will move immediately for arms control negotiations. >> for my follow up, i will borrow from your principles and ask you what is the simple question you would most like to ask your opponent of foreign policy? >> i do not have a single most question. i guess the concern that i have is a concern not only as a vice presidential candidate but as a citizen in this country. my concern is that we are not doing anything to stop the arms

race. it seems to me if we keep talking about military superiority -- we are at a comparable level with the soviet union -- our joint chiefs of staff at said a exchanging our military power for there's -- i guess what i would want is commitment. pretty soon they would do something about making this a safer world for all of us. >> four years ago president reagan insisted a military buildup would bring the negotiate -- the soviets to negotiate. since that have spent almost $1 trillion on defense but the soviets are building their military as rapidly as we are. was his strategy wrong? >> i think his strategy is correct. you have to go to where we are. when we came into office the

american people recognize that we have slipped in positions on inferiority and various things. some of our plans were older than the pilots. ships cannot go out to sea. you had a major problem with the military. the morale was not very good either. we have had to strengthen the military. we are well on the way to getting that job done. america is back in terms of military strengthen our ability to deter aggression and keep the peace. at the same time, we have made proposals and proposals and that sound proposals on reducing nuclear weapons. the strategic arms reduction talks were good discussions. the talks were sound of talks, and i wish the soviet union has continued them. a treaty to ban chemical

treaties with our initiative. we think it would move forward to verification so that everybody would know whether the other side was keeping its word. you would reduce the level of terror. we are talking to them about conventional reduction. we have talked to them about human rights. we try to do something about the human rights question. the oppression of soviet juice is intolerable. we have to keep moving forward. -- the oppression of soviet jews is intolerable. the soviets are more likely to make a deal. they made a treaty when they thought we were going to deploy and abm system. i am optimistic for the future

once they realize we will have a strong, principled president to negotiate with, strong leadership of demonstrative flexibility on arms control. >> i will give you a chance to ask the question you would like to must ask of your opponent. >> i sure would like to use the time to talk abut the world series or something of that nature. i do not have any questions. we are so different from the -- the reagan/bush administration is so different that america will have the clearest choice. it is about going back to the failed ideas of the past, inflation, despair, no leadership -- blaming the american people for failed leadership, or another option. keep this recovery going until it benefits everybody.

peace at home, peace abroad, prosperity, opportunity. i would like to hear her talk on those things, but i think the yellow light is flashing so we will leave it there. >> nothing on the world series? >> i think the vice president's comment is an indication on -- it really typifies the administration. an administration that looks backward to not for words into the future. i am tickled other comments on human rights. the soviet union in 1979 allowed 51,000 people to immigrate because this administration's policies over the past years, 1300 people got out of the soviet union had entered 1983 and 1984. that is not a career record on human rights achievements. this administration has spent $1 trillion on the fence but it has not gotten $1 to land on

national security. >> your rebuttal? >> no rebuttal. >> weekend and go to the closing statements. each will be four minutes and like that we will begin with the vice president. >> and a couple of weeks, the american people will be faced with a choice. the clearest choice in 50 years. do we move forward with strength and prosperity, or do we go back to weakness, despair, this respect? ronald reagan and i have cut our trust and the american people. we have moved some of the power away from washington, d.c. and put it back with the people. the neighborhoods are safer because crime is going down. your sons and daughters are doing better but interest will. there is a new opportunity lying out there in the future. science, technology, and space offering technology to

everybody, all the you -- all of the young ones coming up. ronald reagan is clearly the strongest leader of the free world. i will be honest with you. it is a joy to serve with a president who does not apologize for the united states of america. mr. mondale on the other hand has one idea. go out and tax the american people. he wants to wipe out the one protection that those of the lowest end of the economic scale have protecting them against being rammed into higher and higher tax brackets. we owe our country too much to go back to that kind of an approach. i would like to say something to the young people. i know what it is to have a dream and to have a job and to work hard to really participate and to the american dream. some of your finishing high school and college, some of

your starting off in the workplace. we want america oppose the greatest grift -- america's greatest griffeift. it is absolutely essential that we guarantee the young people that the they will not know the agony of war. gift, opportunity and peace. we must continue to go ahead. the world is too complex to go back to vacillation and weakness. with two much going on to go back to the failed policies of the past. the future is too bright to not give it our best shot. together we can go forward and left america up to meet her

greatest dreams. thank you very much. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much. in matters of equity, you will be allowed applause at your closing statement. >> i hope somebody wants to applaud. this is the greatest honor i have ever had. is not only the bond that i feel as i go across this country with a mentor of the country, i would not be standing here if mondale did not have the courage of my party does not stand for the morals that it does of equal opportunity.

over the last two months to have been traveling all across the country talking to people about the future. he works for a car dealer and he is a word about the deficits and how high interest rates will affect his job. every place i go see young children and parents and the -- this award are regard to do to reduce the nuclear arms race? i sat with the allen family who lived next door to a toxic dump her are very concerned that the toxics are seeping into the water they and their neighbors and drink. these people love their country. that is not the patriotism your saying in the commercials as you watch television these days. their patriotism is not only a pride in the country, but a price that is strong enough to me to the challenges of the future.

when we find jobs for the 8.5 million people that are unemployed in our country, we will make our country stronger. that will be a patriotic act. we cut interest rates, young people come by houses. there is pro-family. there will be a patriotic act. we educate our children that there will be able to compete in a world economy, that is a patriotic act. romney stop the arms race and make this a safer world. that is a patriotic act. when we keep the peace. young men did not die a, and that is a patriotic act. those are the keys to the future. who can be the leader for the future? when walter mondale was the attorney general of minnesota, he led the fight for a man who could afford to get justice because he could not afford a lawyer.

he wrote the fair housing act. he even investigated the concerns and the abuses of migrant workers. why did he do that? those were not popular causes. children do not vote. migrant workers and i exactly a powerful lobby in this country. he did it because it was a right to. mondale said he would rather lose a battle over decency than when one ever self-interest. i agree with them. this campaign is not over. for our country, for our future, for the principles we believe in, walter mondale and i have just begun to fight it. clause[applause]

>> thank you very much. i would like to thank the vice president bush, of the members of the panel for joining us in this debate. i would like to join you and thanking them, the city of philadelphia, and the league of women's voters. the next debate will take place said kansas city on october 21. this subject will be foreign affairs the war began that o'clock eastern time. we hope he will join us on the 21st. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [no audio] [no audio] >> cd only vice-presidential

debate thursday night live on c- span, cspan radio and c- span.org. next, live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on "washington journal." after that "newsmakers." live the 11:00 a.m., the candidates debate in the connecticut u.s. senate race. >> almost 20 years ago, we broadcast one of the most controversial stories in our 44 years on the air. it was called "yes, but is it art? " i was accused of being a philistines. of not appreciating contemporary art. the works that i questioned hundreds of thousands of dollars

are now worth hundreds of millions of dollars. >> what made everybody so mad? >> i discovered something that i had absolutely could barely believe. , that when you question someone's taste in art, it is more personal and probing than politics, religion, sexual preference. it is something that goes to the very soul. >> "60 minutes"morley safer and his career tonight at 8:00 on "q &a." >> this morning, a discussion of the tax proposals by the presidential candidates.